Miggiano v Evans [2024] EWHC 1335 (KB) (02 May 2024)

Miggiano v Evans [2024] EWHC 1335 (KB) (02 May 2024)

There is no real prospect of success on appeal because the trial judge's conclusion that the signature was genuine was supported by the evidence, including expert handwriting analysis and witness testimony, and there was no error of law or procedure justifying appellate intervention.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1335 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Amelia Miggiano; Defendant: Islwyn Evans
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / Oral Hearing of Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Appeals, Forgery, Land Transfer, Handwriting Evidence
Civil Procedure Property Law Appeals Forgery Land Transfer Handwriting Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amelia Miggiano

Claimant

Islwyn Evans

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / Oral Hearing of Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the claimant's signature on a property transfer was genuine
  2. 2 Whether the trial was fair and the evidence properly evaluated
  3. 3 Whether there is a real prospect of success on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

There is no real prospect of success on appeal because the trial judge's conclusion that the signature was genuine was supported by the evidence, including expert handwriting analysis and witness testimony, and there was no error of law or procedure justifying appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal is dismissed